On 27/07/12 09:27, Max Richards wrote:
> much here to ponder, thanks Dominic.
Thanks for both suggestions, for me. Greer against the Romanticism of
Emerson's class privileged boy... (Not really a reader of Emerson, 
although I know the Greer discourse on the beauty of boys, sexual yet 
not able to grow a beard.)

The other thing I find is writing very privileged adolescent men as 
characters which are highly gendered and then having to bring in a young 
woman who is independent, and in this case using a love story genre 
between the two boys, and being in my mid 50s and as such, alien to 
this. Perhaps being alien is a good position in terms of editing a 
fairly messy first draft. (And I enjoy writing the BBQ poem with the 
trope of older men along side.)

  Foucault was asked what he felt about a gay rights magazine (Gai Pied) 
being in his 50s, which was written by younger men for young men. I went 
back to rereading this and wonder if this is not some reply/refusal to 
the...

nonchalance of boys who are sure of a dinner (wealthy enough to expect the servants to cook, provide food etc

(Last para of interview, below, also noting that Foucault used the 
interview as a mode of philosophical writing)

http://caringlabor.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/michel-foucault-friendship-as-a-way-of-life/

I would like to say, finally, that something well considered and 
voluntary like a magazine ought to make possible a homosexual culture, 
that is to say, the instruments for polymorphic, varied, and 
individually modulated relationships. But the idea of a program of 
proposals is dangerous. As soon as a program is presented, it becomes a 
law, and there’s a prohibition against inventing. There ought to be an 
inventiveness special to situation like ours and to these feelings, this 
need that Americans call “coming out,” that is, showing oneself. The 
program must be wide open. We have to dig deeply to show how things have 
been historically contingent, for such and such reason intelligible but 
not necessary. We must make the intelligible appear against a background 
of emptiness and deny its necessity. We must think that what exists is 
far from filling all possible spaces. To make a truly unavoidable 
challenge of the question: What can be played?